Talk:Profumo affair

Tone

This article takes a very passive tone and seems to be excusing the actions of Profumo, who was a married, middle-aged politician who thought it would be a good idea to have sexual relations with a 19-year-old woman. An elected official who compromised himself, his marriage, and national security, and then repeatedly lied about it. I understand that Wikipedia needs to remain neutral, but the facts at hand don't appear to be neutrally presented here - rather, they seem to be diffused with a lot of dismissive, exculpatory phrasing. Why is the page picture a picture of him before the scandal, in his office, rather than one taken after the affair was revealed, which would seem more relevant? If there's a need to use the in-his-office picture, seems like it would be more appropriate in the background section. ShinySquirrel42 (talk) 09:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I note criticism of the article NPOV raised on tumblr here: [1] --ZKang123 (talk) 10:08, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

That's a reblog of the Tumblr post in the edit summary of Special:Diff/1002050976 dated 16:25, 22 January 2021. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 19:18, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

And it seems those edits have been reverted since.--ZKang123 (talk) 10:25, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

What is Going On With This Article

someone keeps defending rape and eulogizing a rapist!? Looking over this document it's pretty easy to figure out whom. Why is this acceptable, in this culture? Will this article be returned to a state featuring accurate language and appropriate specific photographic resources? Or is wikipedia content to remain Alexa's volunteer wormtongue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freign (talk • contribs) 14:53, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

"British politician sex" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect British politician sex and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 28#British politician sex until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Sdrqaz (talk) 23:58, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

"The Crown" touches on Ward et al

Check out the episode in season 2 on Prince Philip's "indiscretions," one of which is purported to be his participation in Ward's "practice." The series is compelling but takes many liberties; the problem is: we -- other than the experts -- never know how closely it hews to or how far it strays from the truth. 73.158.119.36 (talk) 10:06, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

The Picture

What relevance does the picture of "John Profumo in 1938" have when this takes place at the beginning of 1961? To show picture of 23-year-old Profumo when he was 46 at the time of scandal is not only dismissive of severity of the scandal, it takes away from the fact presented in writing. Is there really no relevant picture of him around that time frame? Tom Tanks (talk) 08:48, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I replaced the photo with a contemporaneous photo from 1962 from the National Portrait Gallery Vasusrir429 (talk) 00:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Featured article status

Given the persistent complaints that this article appears to diminish the scandal, should it go to WP:FAR? Apocheir (talk) 23:22, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Listed (belatedly) at WP:FARGIVEN. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 20:29, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

@Voorts and Tim O'Doherty: hello! Hope you're doing well. I'm not asking for a detailed answer because I don't want to take up too much of your time, but does this article [on the Profumo affair] accurately reflect what WP:RS has to say on the topic? Given your work bringing Well he would, wouldn't he? to FA, I thought you might be familiar with scholarly consensus (?) on a related topic, and so would better be able to (briefly) evaluate this article. Thank you! Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 17:25, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what's the issue here? Where are the complaints? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:50, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

It looks like there was a popular social media post about changes to this article (and its POV) waaay back in 2021—the Tumblr post also mentioned and linked in #Tone above—leading to comments like the initial one in #Tone and #What is Going On With This Article, as well as the protection of this article. The logs for this article show no page protection since.

I'm not entirely clear why Apocheir opened this discussion earlier this year (nor why ZKang123 replied to #Tone three years after its initial post). Maybe people keep refinding that old post. Hence my question: is there any merit to these anymore?

Perhaps it's strange or even a troutable offense, but I don't know what I don't know. So before I take this off FARGIVEN, I wanted to ask someone like you who knows more about the Affair. Is the article missing some significant POV or change in scholarship in the ten years since it was promoted to FA?

In any case, thanks for replying. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 23:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Right, thanks. I'm by no means an expert on the affair or the current academic consensus, but I can't see how this could be seen as biased: it looks like it covers all bases decently. If there's a separate issue that's not about bias then I wouldn't be opposed to changing it to a closer version to how it was when just listed as FA, keeping the improvements and jettisoning the disimprovements. There's no need to take this to FAR, I think. Informal discussion here will do for the small, if any, changes which need to be made. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! I've taken this off FARGIVEN. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 02:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)